Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Supporting Innovation by Promoting Analogical Reasoning

    Uploaded by

    DavidLe
    11 views10 pages

    Original Title

    Supporting innovation by promoting analogical reasoning

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views10 pages

    Supporting Innovation by Promoting Analogical Reasoning

    Uploaded by

    DavidLe

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    8 Toots FoR neNovATION ‘Tne (189). How ngage sacar pce HL Pd and P Ace (i), ‘Spt arent Thy, earch an apn (gp, 25-22), New Yo exam “Tata (1981). Dizoonn memory formape Capi Pacha 13,874, ‘Tan, B, (1983) What does dwing reel bout thinking In 8. Gey a BTresiy (Eos), Vial and peal resoing br dsgn (PP. 93-101). Spon, ‘Astral: Key Cente of Design Computing an Cognition ‘Tan, B GOD])- Spit schemas in depictions la Me Gas (Ed), Spatial shoy ‘and abr tog (pp. 9-11). Cambridge Mas: MIT Pres, ‘Tat, B (0005), Puncona sgicance of suospetalrpreenatins. fa P. Sah Sad A. Miyake (Eds), Handot of highs scsi! thinking (pp. 1-39, Cambie UK: Cambridge Unversity Press. Tas, By Acuna, My Hos, Jy Lim P. Uy Hamano; P, Pas, By ‘Stat, C, Dass MP. (2007). Copitie dein pala for encase nations. in G Aen (Ba), Appel spatial cognition: Pom restch 10 epite tel. Mala J Ebu, ‘vase, By Hass, J, Lz, P, apd Duos, MP. (203). Explanations in gee ‘lug tnd word Is K-R Coney, enti and. Bateman (E08), Spd unpaged dlp. Oxford: Oxford Univesity Pras twas, B, ad Lin PU. (1998). How space secures language. la C. Fes, (C Habel and KF Wender (Eds), Spt prison A ering apprash te reprocton and prcein fatal ove (p. 15-175) Bai: Sp Verse ‘Toa, By and Lis, 2. U (1909). coral apd veal too fr carting rote {nC Frese and DM, Mase (Es) Spatia irmaion hong am mu. onl onan of rpc oman sec Sl) Bei Spring, CHAPTERS SUPPORTING INNOVATION BY PROMOTING ANALOGICAL REASONING ARTHUR B. MARKMAN KRISTIN L. WOOD JULIE S. LINSEY JEREMY T. MURPHY JEFFREY P. LAUX ios: behavior comains a striking mix of habit and creative behavior. On cone and, mich of what we da in if is routine. We tend to take the ae ‘oute to work each day, West inthe same eats in classes and meetings. We purchase the same products atthe supermarket, On the other hand, our daly if s marked by language use in which we produce novel sentences in new contents, communicating our thoughts with sentences we have never \utered before, While many of our behaviors are routine, we ar alo capable of adapting to new circumstances flexibly 6 Toots FoR IwNOYATION “Much of our everday behavion-—both the habitual and the productve— fede fortes, In contast, innovation setings are often effrul and fu ‘tating. Consequentiy, we ae prone o thnk thet innovation requires cogni. tive procesies uit diferent from those involved in ou daily behavior "We ges thatthe eling of rastation and effort involved in innovation settings arses from an inability to retrieve relevant koviedge that suggest ‘solution tothe current problem. That sa eral botleneck in innovative problem solving isthe ality ofa problem solver (or problem-solving team) to iden prior instances or principles that facilitate problem solving. Once ‘we understand people's strengths and weaknesses in their ability to retrieve background knowlege, we can develop tools that improve thes bites. Tn order to develop these ides further, we begin witha discussion ofthe role ofbackground knowledge in crestve problem solving. This dscasion will focus om the way problems ate categorized and the importance of {nalogy in problem solving. The presentation naturally leads to a focus ‘on limitations of people's ability to retrieve analogies. We discuss research that examines methods to improve people's silty t retrieve analogies, Finally, we examine important avenues for tools that are capable of extending people's ability to use prior knovledge to solv new problems. ANALOGY AND PRosLem SOLVING Cognitive science typical takes one oftwo epproachesto studying problem sling. One is problem space approach, and the second is a background Tnowledge approach. In the problem space view, problems arse when people havea goal that they must achieve and they have a set of steps ot ‘operations thet are avaiable o solve the problem, but the sequence of steps ofthe set of relevant operations is not known (e@, Newel, 1990; Newell ‘nd Simon, 1963) In the background knowledge view, a central method fot Solving a new problem ie to find a prior problem that bears important Sinulaiies to the current problem and then to adapt the solution to the old problem to the new station (eg Polya, 1945). The background know ‘edge might be an analogous situation, or it might be a known specific cae from a similar domain (Gick and Holyoak, 1980; Kolodner, 1993). Tis eary to see the role of background knowledge in iamovatios reuo- spectively. For example barbed wire was modeled on bear bushes tat were gown inthe wes to provide ivetock barriers (Basal, 1988). De Mestais ‘known to have invented Velero® afte seeing burrs sticking tothe fur of his oe |suPPORTING INNOVATION BY PROMOTING ANALOGICAL REASONING _ 87 dog, Weisberg (this volume) discusses the evolution of ideas overtime in {he works of creative individuals, Christensen and Schur (2007) document {he uses ofanalogyby innovators workingin the domain of medical plastics. ‘The critical issue for promoting innovation, however, sto understand se way people come to recognize that knowledge they have in one domain ss ging to be used to solve the current problem. Thats, hove can we nse analogy prospectively? To addres ths question, we ist have to give brief Summary of What i known aboue similtity and analogy. This theoretical basis wil ground our discussion about the dficulies of using analogies and the base for tools to support innovation. Analogical Reasoning ‘Much psychological research ha examined people's ability to form and use soaogies. This work has established a set of basic principles forthe py. ‘ology of analogy that are generally agreed upon by researchers (Geatner, 1983; Gentner, Holyoak, and Kokinov, 2001; Holyoak and Tragard, 1995), ‘This work suggests that analogies involve finding parallel ses of ration: ships berseen two domains, We can instrate thie ides with the analogy between an inflatable matress and water weights described in Figure 5-1 aa ae Wag: cot macestcotecmtvpna | Go pnbecane sy (tetas: Regular manrss¢reaey beta Weight are tas SSRIS MEMS | Sarno Ast ates spre boy ar isrear ‘hese tense Figure 5-1 Analogy between an inflatable mattress and water-filled weights a s0PPORTING INNOVATION BY PROMOTING ANALOGICAL REASONING 89 _An infatable matress is used by campers to provide a comfortable surice for seeping. The mattress a plastic shell tha is inlned with air when tis se up. Water weighs are a workout set consisting of inflatable plastic pouches connected to bars, The plstic pouches are empy tvinen packed, but can be filled with water to allow travelers to lift weights ona ip. These devices ate not particulary sma ether inthe way theylook, chet specifi functions, or the way they operate. An inflatable mattress is age, ‘water weights are smal, Mattresses ae for sleeping on, while weights are for lifting. An inflatable mares is led with an air pump. Water weights are filled in a snk. However, these products ate analogous, because they pre serve a common set of relationships. Mattresses are hard to travel with ‘because they ae heavy so an infatable mattress removes the hea compe ‘nent (stafing) and replaces it with a resource (ait) that provides the same funtion and is avilable atthe location where the matress isto beset up. Likewise, weights are hard to travel with because they are heavy. The “water weight replace the heavy component (neal mass) witha resource (rater) tht provides the same fanetionlity ands evaiabe at the Toction ‘here the weights are tobe used. People have a remarkable abiliy to notice the similarities between domains that ae not alike on the susfice. Analogies alo allow people to ‘etend their knowledge of one domain by virtue oft similarity to another (Clement and Gentner, 1991; Markman, 1997). This ability to make analo- cl inferences is crucial to analogical problem solving. When solvinganew problem, the problem staement is only a partial match to the known Solutions. The key to analogical problem solving isto find known problems that have the same strctare as the problem being solved. The olution to ‘the know problem ie then a candidate to be applied tothe new situation. For euimple ifsomeone were trying to create a set of weights that could be used during travel, then the representation of that domain would not contain any information about potential soltions, Solving tis problem by tnalogy requires matching the problem statement and the obstacles ‘0 problem solution (create Higher weighs that can be used fr ave, because gular weights are heavy) aguinst known problems that have solutions (Goch as the inflatable mates). Te problem solver can then try to adapt the solution tothe new domain. “Adapting solutions sitslf nota trivial proces (Alterman, 1988; Greines 1988), For example, to adapt the inflatable mattress solution to water ‘weights, the weight must be reconceprualized asa container that can be

    You might also like